About your Search

20121008
20121008
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
nominee pledged to get tough by reversing looming defense cuts coming at the end of the year, threatening to impose possible new sanctions on iran and by looking for ways to arm the rebels in syria. romney also said he would pursue a two-state solution between the israelis and palestinians, a concept he seemed to diminish at a fund-raiser at was secretly recorded and leaked to mother jones magazine. >> i look at the palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of israel. i say, there's just no way. >> reporter: the obama campaign tried to get the jump on romney's speech, releasing a new ad, reminding voters of the republican candidate's gaffe-plagued foreign trip over the summer. romney, obama aides say, is no ronald reagan, more like chevy chase. combatting that image, romney met with a group of retired generals after a speech. the romney approach would be both more muscular and bipartisan. >> if you look at harry truman and john kennedy and the use of power by bill clinton in his second term, that is a much different a
, back to 1950, are the cases of the naacp legal and education defense fund that thurgood marshall is actually bringing. and he's building it sort of brick by brick, block by block. thurgood marshall not yet, of course, a justice of the supreme court. he's making the case that plessy v. ferguson and, um, which defined the acceptability of separate but equal, they're making the case through the naacp that this is, um, cannot be, cannot remain the law of the land. and it's pretty clear that the case that is going to become a very, very important one for the court -- and it's actually the year that rehnquist is there -- is brown v. board of education. and so, which turns out, in fact, to be the case that strikes that doctrine down. very, very important. and a unanimous verdict of, unanimous decision of the supreme court. so rehnquist is, part of the role of a clerk is to offer his advice and opinions to his boss about these cases. and so rehnquist writes a memo about brown v. board of education, and he basically says that plessy should stand. rehnquist authors this memo, gives it to j
has to give. you have to specify where the deductions are. you can't increase defense spending, extend the bush cuts, 20% on top of that, and just say, no, it's going to be ok, we'll grow our way into it. that does raise a fair amount of scrutiny. >> sure. i think that's legitimate. first of all, romney has said to the degree they can't get the loopholes closed in congress, he'll reduce the tax credit. that he'll stick to the principle that it will pay for itself. there's a general argument over whether you should count economic growth. simpson and bowles don't count economic growth. two harvard experts said higher growth. third, romney has an energy plan which expanding american oil and gas. the royalties alone are worth $750 billion a year to the federal government. fourth, look carefully at what romney said, that the true supply sides don't necessarily love but it's good politics. he said i will close enough deductions that wealthy americans will not get a net tax cut. now, that's a pretty clear description. >> let me just say this. standing on the stage with you in arizona, this is
a blog, i think you had a blog in "the new yorker" about the defense of marriage act and the way it would be reviewed and i thought that would be an interesting thing to bring at there are two issues to the supreme court of the same time and they both relate to same-sex marriage but the cases is a challenge to the constitutionality of the defense of marriage act. as i'm sure many of you know the defense of marriage act passed in 1996 says the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages under any circumstances even if they are legal in the of where and just as married as any heterosexual couple in massachusetts. as i'm sure you know under the internal revenue code, money one spouse to the other but because the irs can't surviving spouse had to pay taxes on that money. there was a considerable amount so it was a very straight up challenge to that law. the other case that is heading to the supreme court is the proposition 8 case out of california and equal protection it loving versus virginia and the sense that can the state to ban this? the doma case, the case is a lot easier l
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)